CAT 2017 Slot 1 — VARC Question 27
The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that best captures the author’s position.
For each of the past three years, temperatures have hit peaks not seen since the birth of meteorology, and probably not for more than 110,000 years. The amount of carbon dioxide in the air is at its highest level in 4 million years. This does not cause storms like Harvey – there have always been storms and hurricanes along the Gulf of Mexico – but it makes them wetter and more powerful. As the seas warm, they evaporate more easily and provide energy to storm fronts. As the air above them warms, it holds more water vapour. For every half a degree Celsius in warming, there is about a 3% increase in atmospheric moisture content. Scientists call this the Clausius–Clapeyron equation. This means the skies fill more quickly and have more to dump. The storm surge was greater because sea levels have risen 20 cm as a result of more than 100 years of human – related global warming which has melted glaciers and thermally expanded the volume of seawater.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: Global warming melts glaciers, resulting in seawater volume expansion; this enables more water vapour to fill the air above faster. Thus, modern storms contain more destructive energy.
- A
The storm Harvey is one of the regular, annual ones from the Gulf of Mexico; global warming and Harvey are unrelated phenomena.
- B
Global warming does not breed storms but makes them more destructive; the Clausius–Clapeyron equation, though it predicts potential increase in atmospheric moisture content, cannot predict the scale of damage storms might wreck.
Global warming melts glaciers, resulting in seawater volume expansion; this enables more water vapour to fill the air above faster. Thus, modern storms contain more destructive energy.
- D
It is native to think that rising sea levels and the force of tropical storms are unrelated; Harvey was destructive as global warming has armed it with more moisture content, but this may not be true of all storms.
Easy
Para-summary: the author’s claim is causal — global warming does not create storms, but it makes them wetter, stronger and more destructive (warmer seas evaporate more, warmer air holds more moisture, higher sea levels raise the storm surge). The right summary keeps this mechanism; reject options that over-focus on Harvey, on unpredictability, or that add ideas the author never raises.
Option 1 — eliminate. It claims global warming and Harvey are “unrelated” — flatly contradicting the passage, which says warming makes such storms wetter and more powerful.
Option 2 — eliminate. It twists the Clausius–Clapeyron point into a claim about “cannot predict the scale of damage.” The author uses the equation to explain increased moisture, not to discuss predicting damage; this is a distortion/irrelevant add.
Option 3 — correct. It tracks the author’s causal chain: warming melts glaciers → sea volume expands; warmer seas/air put more water vapour into the air faster → modern storms carry more destructive energy. Captures the mechanism and the position.
Option 4 — eliminate. The hedge “but this may not be true of all storms” introduces a qualification the author never makes; it dilutes and distorts the firm causal claim.
The author’s position is best summarised by Option 3: global warming does not breed storms but, by warming seas and air and raising sea levels, loads them with more moisture and destructive energy.
Related Main Point Identification questions
- The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that be…
- The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that be…